DataCore Software, known for its storage virtualization software, has released a survey comprising over 450 IT organizations across North America and Europe, “The State of Virtualization.” The findings can be a little disturbing, especially to a company who creates a product that many medium and large enterprise IT orgs are leaving out of their virtualization plans: Storage. The study found that 43 percent had mistaken the impact storage would have on server and desktop virtualization or had shied away from a virtualization project because storage-related costs were too high.

Delayed virtualization projects weren’t the only downside to this apparent misunderstanding of storage virtualization costs; even among those who had already deployed server virtualization, 66 percent view the increase in storage costs as their biggest problem. Higher costs doesn’t mean higher quality, either. Almost 40 percent reported unhappiness with their storage infrastructure due to slowed or limited availability for applications. To exacerbate the decreased performance, 22 percent of IT admins feel locked-in to their storage hardware provider, with about 40 percent of respondents using two different storage systems from the same vendor.

In order to achieve the agile, cost-effective, and enduring IT infrastructures you seek, those old ties to physical storage devices must be broken, just like you’ve done with servers. To do so requires tackling the next “Big Problem” plaguing data centers today – dissolving the expensive and restrictive dependency on disk hardware.

Are storage cost forecasts keeping your company from virtualizing, or do you wish now that it had? Share your stories in the comments or send me an email directly at Melanie@ITKnowledgeExchange.com.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States.
Privacy

I'm not dis-crediting the purpose of virtual storage, but I'm not seeing any true benefit to this besides cost. However, 1 TB drives are going for $50-$60 now, and decreasing each day it seems...with further lifespan and lower energy consumption. So, I guess I just don't see the point of using virtual storage since it should still rely on what they proclaim they're replacing. It's nice to have an alternative, but it sounds like they're using RAM disks instead.

I find this interesting as current analysis I have done suggests the relative cheap cost/mb has IT shops less concerned with moving data off tier 1 infrastructure and far more concerned with accessibility and archiving policies as they tie to business performance/process.

[...] How does virtualization change my storage needs? (An important question, considering 43 percent of IT organizations underestimate or forget to calculate the impact storage will have on ....) [...]

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States.
Privacy

Processing your reply...

About This Blog

There's a lot of IT news and analysis out there. The IT Watch Blog has what matters to you, including breaking announcements, insider tips and unbiased opinions from the people who matter most: Real IT professionals.